These two Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals arise out of execution proceedings in O.S.No. 149 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appellants are different, but the respondents are common to both the appeals.

2. The appellants and certain others were said to be in possession of small extents of land, forming part of an area of 50 cents in Sy.No.4/7 of Gopalapatnam Revenue Village, owned by Pandiripilli Madhava Rao, the father of the 151 respondent. When they apprehended that they would be evicted from the sites in their possession, they filed a.S.No.325 of 1985 in the Court of VII Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, for the relief of perpetual injunction. Madhava Rao, in turn, filed a.S.No.149 of 1985 in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, against 13 defendants, including the appellants herein, for recovery of possession of the entire extent of 50 cents. During the pendency of the suits, Madhava Rao died, and the respondents came on record as legal representatives.

3. O.S.No.149 of 1985 was decreed on 29-10-1991 and O.S. No. 325 of 1985 was dismissed, somewhere at the same time. No appeals were preferred by the appellants herein. Respondents filed E.P.No.244 of 2002 for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 149 of 1985.

4. The appellants filed two similar applications, being E.A. Nos. 135 and 136 of 2003, under Rule 97 of Order 21 C.P.C., for the relief of declaration, to the effect that the decree in O.S.No.149 of 1985 is a nullity, and that it was obtained by fraud. They pleaded that when the suit came up for trial, a compromise was entered into between themselves and the respondents, in writing, and in terms thereof, they paid a sum of Rs.5,500/- each. It was alleged that believing that the respondents would bring the same to the notice of the trial Court, they did not pursue the proceedings.

5. The respondents filed counters, denying the averments made by the appellants. Through separate but similar orders, dated 07-10-2005, the Executing Court dismissed E.A. Nos. 135 and 136.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S. Nos. 310 and 311 of 2005 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appeals were dismissed on 30-06-2008.

Hence, these Second Appeals.

6. Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that when, there existed a settlement between the parties to the suit, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents herein to bring it to the notice of the Court, and suppression thereof amounts to fraud and misrepresentation. He contends that the Courts below did not take into account, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by his clients, and that the judgments rendered by the Courts below cannot be sustained in law or on facts.

7. Sri K.R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the very allegation as to the existence of a compromise is without basis and that the applications filed by the appellants were untenable in law. He contends that the only way through which a declaration as to the nature of a decree can be sought is by filing a suit, and that such a relief cannot be claimed in an application under Rule 97 of Order 21 C.P.C.

8. The appellants figured as defendants in O.S.No. 149 of 1985 filed by Sri Madhava Rao, the father of the 151 respondent, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. It was decreed on 29-10-1991. The appellants did not file appeal against that decree and permitted it to become final. It was only when the respondents filed E.P., for execution of the decree, that the appellants came forward with applications under Rule 97 of Order 21 C.P.C. The prayer made in their applications reads as under:

"Petitioners therefore pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to adjudicate on the right, title and interest of the 151 petitioner and make an order declaring that,

(a) the decree dt. 29-10-1991 made in O.S.149 of 85 on the file of the Pri